In Defense of Grover Norquist

The anti-tax activist represents a challenge to authoritarian GOP orthodoxy.

There have always been libertarian and authoritarian strains within the Republican Party. Both are very different, often to the degree of incompatibility.

Generally speaking, the libertarian strain is what generations have always thought of as traditional American conservatism—limited government, individual liberty, free markets, strong national defense, and loyalty to the Constitution. However imperfect, this is the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. When Reagan told Mike Wallace in 1976 “I think that the heart of my philosophy is much more libertarian,” he thought it important to make this distinction.

The authoritarian strain is what many thought of as conservatism throughout the 2000s: Bigger government (expanding entitlements), attacks on individual liberty (indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping), state intervention in the economy (stimulus, bailouts, TARP), and an aggressive national defense (Iraq War, a decade in Afghanistan). This is the conservatism of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Strangely enough, it is also generally the “conservatism” of Barack Obama, in that most of the more authoritarian policies described here have been continued or expanded by Bush’s successor.

This week, there were dozens of headlines and stories speculating that Republicans were suddenly throwing longtime anti-tax activist Grover Norquist under the bus. Some seem eager to do so. But the argument between Norquist and such Republican leaders, who now say they’ll break his pledge and raise taxes, also represents the latest tension between these libertarian and authoritarian strains.

Advertisement

Those who praise the few Republicans now willing to “compromise” on taxes and revenue are missing the point—these Republicans have been behaving like Democrats for some time. They were the quintessential Bush Republicans, tolerant of massive government intervention in domestic policy and exuberant about it in foreign policy. The kind of low tax, minimal spending, limited government Norquist advocates hasn’t actually existed or been promoted within the GOP for a very long time.

It is no coincidence that the Republicans who now break rank with Norquist—most notably Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Congressman Peter King—are also some of the most high profile advocates of a more authoritarian Republicanism.

The tired, old neoconservative mindset of more government, more war, and less civil liberties informs the current “changing” views on taxes and spending of these authoritarian Republicans. For example, the automatic cuts, or sequestration, set to occur January 1, are generally supported by Norquist and most libertarian-leaning Republicans. Said Sen. Graham “What I would say to Grover Norquist is that the sequester would destroy the United States military.” “Destroy” the military? Even under sequestration, Pentagon spending will remain about where it was in 2006.

This is how Democrats behave anytime Republicans dare suggest rolling back any federal department. It is also how authoritarian Republicans think about Pentagon spending—that a decrease in the rate of increase is a “cut” in spending.

And this is precisely where Norquist worries authoritarian Republicans the most. Norquist has not only been an outspoken skeptic of current foreign policy, but in his position as one of the conservative movement’s leading fiscal hawks, he has begun to tie deficits and debt to our overseas policies. The authoritarian wing of the GOP does not mind if their fellow Republicans talk about small government so long as they don’t actually go the full route by addressing Pentagon spending—an annual trillion dollar revenue siphon dwarfed only by entitlements.

Unlike Norquist, authoritarian Republicans generally agree with Obama on foreign policy. Libya is a good example, where Senators like Graham and McCain enthusiastically supported the intervention and many identifiably Tea Party Republican leaders opposed it on constitutional grounds. The authoritarian GOP wing also agrees with Obama on the necessity of undermining basic civil liberties in the name of national security, hence their unwavering support for the Patriot Act and NDAA.

So why should it be any surprise that these Republicans might now agree with Obama on taxes too? Particularly, where the discussion on taxes and revenue correlates with neoconservative desires to continue funding America’s alleged role as world policeman—potentially “destroying” the military, as Graham put it?

The message of this year’s election was not simply voters deducing that Obama is absolutely grand and the GOP is too “extreme”—but that the old Republican Party of Bush, and by extension, 2008 nominee McCain and 2012 nominee Mitt Romney—doesn’t work anymore. Americans aren’t buying it.

Though Norquist’s Taxpayer Pledge has been around for decades, as a feature of limited government, it is an example of what a traditionally conservative Republican Party should work toward—not necessarily what it has been.

This is not to say that Grover Norquist is some sort of libertarian purist, far from it. But his general views on taxes, spending, and foreign policy do represent a challenge to the authoritarian Republicans who’ve long dominated the party. This latest scuffle is simply the old guard getting irritated publicly.

Unfortunately, the authoritarian Republicans aren’t going anywhere, any time soon. But neither is their retread version of the GOP. “Compromise” or not.

Jack Hunter is the co-author of The Tea Party Goes to Washington bySen. Rand Paul and serves as New Media Director for Senator Paul. The viewspresented in this essay are the author’s own and are independent of anycampaign or other organization.

Jack makes a good point, but misses a bigger one. One can not simply wish that the GOP had not entered two wars and a significant expansion of the welfare state without paying for any of it. At some point, the chickens come home to roost. Fiscal conservatism is not a wish or a hope. It is, as Bill Clinton so forcefully noted at the Democratic Convention, a matter of arithmetic. Sad to say, that was — I repeat — at the Democratic Convention. If the GOP holds the line as Grover demands on new revenues, it will have abandoned fiscal conservatism for, now, a second generation. Is that what it intends to run on for the next generation: lower taxes, deficits be damned? Is that all it has?

If the GOP holds the line as Grover demands on new revenues, it will have abandoned fiscal conservatism for, now, a second generation. Is that what it intends to run on for the next generation: lower taxes, deficits be damned?

Sigh. It’s a spending problem, for something like the umpty-ninth time.

The President’s “budget” makes the deficit worse, by asking for MORE stimulus money and CUTTING taxes on all but the “rich”, and increasing taxes on the “rich” in amounts that EVEN IF YOU ASSUME that they will raise revenues rather than sink the economy into another recession, won’t raise enough revenues to make a difference in the deficit.

It’s more deficit spending and class warfare masquerading as prudent budgetary policy No more, no less. There is no doubt that the Democrats have won the messaging battle, but messaging isn’t reality.

Re: “Though Norquist’s Taxpayer Pledge has been around for decades, as a feature of limited government…

No it’s not. It’s a feature of debt funded explosive government.

No Tax Increases and Tax Cuts and are the cheapest of cheap grace when they are not directly coupled to spending cuts. Without which it’s just more Free Lunch/Free War for the Democrats and Free War/Free Lunch for the Republicans.

One last point. Budgets are neither Conservative nor Liberal. They are just paying for what you buy whether it’s Huge War or Huge Entitlements. Republicans use the ruse of the need for a balanced budge amendment control spending. The BBA argument is a lame diversion for kicking the can of insolvency down the road. An amendment would be nice, but Congress can balance the budget today!

Reagan was more authoritarian than libertarian. Law and order rhetoric. He sent the National Guard to quell the Berkely “people’s park” when the City Council voted 8-1 against having the National Guard in the city. Doesn’t this Reagan quote sound authoritarian: “If it takes a bloodbath, let’s get it over with. No more appeasement.”

We have both a spending problem and a revenue problem. However, standard conservative thought focuses on “entitlement” spending as the problem. However, the real problem is defense spending particularly where money, energy, and material leave the country. This at a proportion where we spend as much on defense as the entire world combined. This drains the economy. Virtually all entitlement dollars stay in the country.

On the other side of the equation we have mountains of evidence showing that low taxes on the wealthy do not support the economy and end up depleting the treasury. Otherwise, we would be having a smoking hot economy right now which we do not.

Hunter’s argument seems to boil down to authoritarian means are necessary to justify libertarian ends.

Norquist, who was elected by nobody, is one of these self-selected “leaders” from Conservative INC. who goes around and demand Republican candidates “sign the pledge”. Like a mafiosi he demands the candidate sign the pledge otherwise his groups and other parts of Conservative INC. will come after them in a primary campaign and spend lots of money against them. Sort of like threat to break a store owner’s legs if they pony up the protection money. Now that’s a liberty agenda if I’ve ever seen one, imprisoning one’s conscious in order to get elected.

So has the pledge worked in keeping tax rates low? Sure. Has it stopped big government from growing? Absolutely not. By myopically focusing on tax rates, Norquist and his pals has caused deficits and debt to skyrocket because they’ve scared the politicians into obedience by Enforcers of Doctrine, ergo the very sins of ideology TAC has been trying to break conservatives of the clutches of ideology.

Now you may blame politicians like Saxby Chambliss who sign such pledges and continue to spend like drunken sailors and I would agree. But fact he’s willing to get out of it shows that some in the GOP are starting to get wise to basic math, spending without increases in taxes causes deficits. And he’s also realizing any primary opponent he may well face is going to have to campaign upon a platform of ripping those things Chambliss provides Georgians from the federal government. Is anyone going to campaign against farm subsidies, or closing Ft. Benning or harbor improvements to Savannah in order to keep the faithful to the “pledge”? Well, if they don’t then its virtually useless to run against Chambliss.

People who want to hold themselves faithful to the “pledge” better put up or shut up. Either they run to really cut the budget (and not just PBS) or take their pledges and toss them on the ideological trash heap where they belong.

Let’s keep in mind that Grover Norquist is a LOBBYIST. It is therefore in his best interests to find ways to shake the money tree, which is EXACTLY what the underlying reason is for this “anti-tax pledge.” It is amazing to me that he has gotten away with this chicanery for two decades, but I am also gratified that his stranglehold on Republican lawmakers is at last starting to lessen. The best thing that the GOP can do is to dump this charlatan, as well as the Teabagger nutjobs, and get back to the principles that held sway under Ike Eisenhower. THEN the GOP will have a chance to regain the respect it deserves.

I met Grover Norquist on one occasion – about ten years ago at the annual dinner given by Joe Sobran for his friends and subscribers. He wouldn’t have been in that gathering if his heart and mind were not in the right place. Anti-war Republicans should be happy for him to take the lead and take the heat for advancing our aspirations for the GOP.

Grover’s problem, for me at least, is that up until recently he has insisted on no new taxes without demanding either something approaching a balanced budget or, at a minimum, no increases in spending. No tax increases coupled with the vast expansion of government and entitlements under GWB have wrecked our economy. Grover also supported Mitt Romney for president. Mitt promised to increase defense spending, something that Grover now appears to oppose. Encouraging small government by depriving the beast of tax revenue doesn’t really work if the beast has a credit card and there are people like Grover around who tend to see only one side of the equation and are not denouncing both the taxes and the spending.

The authoritarian strain is what many thought of as conservatism throughout the 2000s: Bigger government (expanding entitlements), attacks on individual liberty (indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping), state intervention in the economy (stimulus, bailouts, TARP), and an aggressive national defense (Iraq War, a decade in Afghanistan). This is the conservatism of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Strangely enough, it is also generally the “conservatism” of Barack Obama, in that most of the more authoritarian policies described here have been continued or expanded by Bush’s successor.

Which of these things are not like the others? In the world I live in, indefinite detention and limitless powers of surveillance are actually authoritarian, and entitlements and measures to stabilize the economy (whether you agree with them or not) oppress no one.

“Which of these things are not like the others? In the world I live in, indefinite detention and limitless powers of surveillance are actually authoritarian, and entitlements and measures to stabilize the economy (whether you agree with them or not) oppress no one.”

That fits with the quote you did since Obama still supports indefinite detention and unlimited surveillance. When it comes to such matters, Obama is still in lockstep with Bush and Republicans. It’s why some peg him as center-right even after including his desire to close Guantanamo.

It’s also why a good few say that both parties are the same as this concept isn’t really fitting with Liberal or Conservative ideals yet both won’t stop loving it.

“Some industries are particularly known for turning out one trick ponies. In software development, for example, computer programs that only do one thing might be given this name. Many kitchen devices, such as a rice cooker or an egg cooker, are also labeled with the term because they are designed for a very specific function and nothing else. If a program or tool performs its one task very well, however, it might be considered valuable despite its apparent limitations.
The phrase is also sometimes used to refer to commentators and academics who use the same material repeatedly without variation; they could also be called “one note.” A politician could be accused of being a one trick pony if he or she focused exclusively on one issue while ignoring others. While single-minded pursuit of a goal might seem admirable, it can also suggest that someone does not have a wider grasp of the world, which could ultimately prove to be a problem.”

entitlements and measures to stabilize the economy (whether you agree with them or not) oppress no one.

Someone is forced to pay for them, whether through taxes or monetary devaluation.

The biggest problem with Norquist is that he is, as I recall, pro-open borders, despite the fact that increasing the population of poor, mostly unskilled immigrants is likely to increase the number of people who want bigger, more generous government, funded by taxes paid for by someone else.

Norquist has every right to voice his opinions, but our leaders are wrong to sign a pledge to a lobbyist. Tax increases, increased revenue, whatever you want to call it should be on the table for our budget discussions, but because of Norquist’s hold over the GOP, our elected leaders are limited in what they can do. The American public must be educated about the pledge that elected leaders take to an unelected lobbyist, and Norquist’s hold over the GOP must end.
Sign the petition to tell our leaders that we want solutions, and we want them to work for us, not a lobbyist.http://endthenorquistpledge.wordpress.com/sign-the-petition/

“The Democrats were on the wrong side of the Civil War, the Cold War and now the Iraq War,’ said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and an all-purpose chest-thumper on matters Right Wing. ‘Their batting average on these things is right up there with France.”

Norquist is not a principled person. He is a party loyalist pushing a simple, populist message. While I agree with the ultimate goals of small market conservatism, Norquist fails to acknowledge the difference between means and ends, and fails to raise his voice when his own party goes on a spending spree. His advocacy would make a lot of sense in a world where the US government had zero debt and a balanced budget. In the real world, he is nothing but a yahoo.